Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Frank Robert]

Well, you biologists have failed to give the mathematical explanation of why combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV. Now you will fail to explain why combination therapy is needed to treat cancer. So, what's the next microevolutionary adaptation problem we'll have to face that you will fail to correctly explain that researchers will muddle through and finally figure out that it requires combination therapy to address? How many boats have to sink before you figure this out?

There is no need to verify the validity of your math as it applies to K & L. The only problems with your math are the implications you are assuming that it has for macroevolution. If you believe those implications are valid then formulate a hypothesis and method for testing the hypothesis along with a review of the literature. We can even give you help in doing that.

 

[Frank Robert]

At least it didn't take a billion years for you to figure out that I did the math correctly for Kishony and Lenski experiments. Just how many bacterial replications do you think it would take for them to evolve into a biologist?

Your math is a misdirection as I have no reason to question its validity. You have not demonstrated how your math negates the evidence for evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

Oh? Biologists have a misconception of how macroevolution is related to microevolution. And you should understand this misconception since you now understand my explanation of the Kishony and Lenski experiments and that explanation is correct. This scientifically inaccurate way of thinking has been circulating in the field of biology for at least a century, that is, that random processes can create life but also transform life from some simple form into all the complex life forms we see today. Abiogenesis and the ToE, the dumb and dumber of the field of biology, you can choose which is which.

Formulate a hypothesis and subject it to the scientific method. Then you can show the rest of us morons its superiority. Until then the elephant in the room is:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... what's the next microevolutionary adaptation problem we'll have to face that you will fail to correctly explain that researchers will muddle through and finally figure out that it requires combination therapy to address? How many boats have to sink before you figure this out?

I suggest you address such questions to oncologists, virologists, microbiologists, etc., and the research teams behind their work. But given that you are clearly in a position to correctly explain the next microevolutionary adaptation problem we'll have to face, and figure out the combination therapy to address it, I look forward to your groundbreaking work leading to your fame and fortune in the near future - but do try to publish in an appropriate journal.

I realise that the 150-year-and-ongoing success story of the macroevolutionary model for the diversity of species may be puzzling or frustrating or irritating in the light of your lab-based mathematics - but the macroevolutionary model works; it has explanatory power, it's been repeatedly tested, it predicts what we actually observe and it is consistent with multiple independent lines of evidence; and consequently population genetics has become a very successful mathematical discipline in its own right.

If you think the proposed underlying molecular mechanisms cannot explain the observational evidence, it seems you have two main options - find mechanisms that do explain the observational evidence, or think again about whether your toy mathematical model provides a complete description of evolution in 'the wild'.

Carping on for years about what everyone else is unable to explain to your satisfaction is obviously getting you nowhere ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Alan Kleinman]

There is no need to verify the validity of your math as it applies to K & L. The only problems with your math are the implications you are assuming that it has for macroevolution. If you believe those implications are valid then formulate a hypothesis and method for testing the hypothesis along with a review of the literature. We can even give you help in doing that.

That implication is that microevolutionary adaptational events don't add up to a macroevolution event, these microevolutionary events must be linked by the multiplication rule. This is true if mutations are random events and this is a fundamental axiom of probability theory, the mathematics of random processes. Perhaps you want to argue that mutations are not random events?

Pita has suggested that I review some modern evolutionary biology texts to find that explanation. Since I'm acquainted with Joe Felsenstein and have had long discussions with him on this subject, why don't we use the textbook he wrote?
THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS

Why don't you tell me which equations from his text can be used to model the Kishony and Lenski experiments? And then you can tell us how to extend any of these equations to explain the mathematics of macroevolution.

Your math is a misdirection as I have no reason to question its validity. You have not demonstrated how your math negates the evidence for evolution.

Why do you keep saying that? My papers give the mathematics that explains microevolutionary experiments and empirical examples of microevolution. Now if you want to believe that bacteria evolve into biologists in a billion years, that's your prerogative but you should not be indoctrinating naive school children with that mathematically irrational notion.

Formulate a hypothesis and subject it to the scientific method. Then you can show the rest of us morons its superiority. Until then the elephant in the room is:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I thought I had given you that hypothesis. I guess I'll have to do it again for the slow learners. Here goes:

1. Microevolution is a stochastic process governed by the theorems and axioms of probability theory.
2. There are two random trials in the microevolutionary process. The replication is a random trial where the two possible outcomes are that a mutation occurs at the particular site in the genome or the mutation does not occur at the particular site in the genome. The other random trial is the mutation itself when it does occur. The outcomes can be a base substitution, base deletion, base insertion, double deletion, double insertion,... any kind of mutation that you can imagine.
3. An adaptation can occur when at least one of the offspring gets the adaptation mutation at that particular site.
4. That new variant and its offspring with that adaptation mutation are now candidates for the next adaptation mutation which occurs as described in steps 2 and 3, where the joint probability of the two random adaptational events occurring is computed using the multiplication rule.

The experimental tests for this hypothesis are of course K & L. And Frank, I actually don't think you are a moron. I think you have just got comfortable with not well-thought-out explanations of a physical phenomenon. You don't test out these explanations with experimentation and when I challenge you to test out these explanations, you make the excuse that you can't test out what happens in a billion years. I understand this is a shock to your way of thinking but with time, this will make sense to you. Think of it this way, when someone says that reptiles can evolve feathers because the weather cooled and feathers make good insulation, ask yourself, how can a reptile lineage accumulate a set of mutations that would do this genetic transformation. What genes would have to be transformed, how many mutations are needed, how many replications are needed to address the issue of the multiplication rule for the accumulation of this set of random mutations?

And that's just the start of the genetic transformation problem, you have all the anatomic and physiologic differences between reptiles and birds to account for. You have a severe mathematical problem with the notion of macroevolution. That mathematical problem is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

I suggest you address such questions to oncologists, virologists, microbiologists, etc., and the research teams behind their work. But given that you are clearly in a position to correctly explain the next microevolutionary adaptation problem we'll have to face, and figure out the combination therapy to address it, I look forward to your groundbreaking work leading to your fame and fortune in the near future - but do try to publish in an appropriate journal.

I'm not the biology teacher that tells biology students that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals but fail to correctly explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. And what is wrong with the Statistics in Medicine journal? At least they understand probability theory, not like the poorly trained biologists that take a couple of courses in dumbbell math and barely pass those courses, and then with a big sigh of relief say, "I hope I never see that stuff again". You mathematically incompetent biologists have religated the biology department into a fictional writing course for the English department.

 

[pitabread]

Carping on for years about what everyone else is unable to explain to your satisfaction is obviously getting you nowhere ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here you are demonstrating that you haven't gotten a sense of what are the most important features of the microevolutionary adaptation problem. The mutation rate is not the primary determiner of the rate of microevolution. It is the multiplication rule of probabilities that drives this process. HIV has a mutation rate of ~1e-5, certainly much higher than the human mutation rate. However, adaptation to each additional selection pressure imposes another instance of the multiplication rule on that lineage. This means that in order for that variant to get the multiple mutations necessary to get a step improvement in fitness requires an exponentially larger population size. Even with a mutation rate of 1e-5, HIV needs a population size of about 1e15 for there to be a reasonable probability of that variant to occur for an adaptational step to 3 simultaneous selection conditions.

No, my problem is that you've previously used the 1e-9 rate from the bacterial experiments to compute "adaptive mutation" rates for humans. Now you are quoting a value that is 10x higher (and one I recall being a little low anyway).

If you use the more appropriate rate for humans, then how many adaptive mutations do you project for humans in the agricultural era (last 10,000 years) and for the prior time going back to separation from other apes?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Hey Pita, I gave some thought to why macroevolutionists don't give credence to my arguments and neither do Creationists.

Macroevolutionists don't like or agree with my arguments and explanations of microevolution and the consequences it has for the idea of macroevolution (microevolutionary steps don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule) and Creationists don't like my argument that Darwinian evolution is qualitatively correct.

But if you want to discuss a modern evolutionary biology text and show us the equations that explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments and how to use them, do that. And then you can show us the equations for macroevolution, why don't we use Joe Felsenstein's text.
THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS

So, point us to the correct equation for the mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments, and macroevolution.

 

[pitabread]

Macroevolutionists don't like or agree with my arguments and explanations of microevolution and the consequences it has for the idea of macroevolution

It's not because of the purported consequences. It's because you haven't shown that your model is even applicable in that context. Heck, you haven't even shown that your model is applicable to the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

On top of that, when you got into it with actual population geneticists that pointed out various issues with your model and your conclusions (not to mention your general understanding of evolution), you basically stone-walled everyone. If an entire group of biologists are telling you there are gaps/issues in what you're proposing, you might want to humble yourself for ten seconds and think about that.

And now you appear to be resorting to projection as to why you are right and why you think everyone else rejects what you are saying.

I'm not sure what your agenda is. If you're trying to figure out evolutionary models for things like bacterial/viral evolution and drug resistance, then perhaps you should try working with biologists instead of ranting against them. If your agenda is that you want to topple the foundation of evolutionary theory and common descent, good luck with that. Creationists have been fighting that battle for a couple centuries and it's gotten them precisely nowhere.

At this point there is nothing else to discuss. That particular image, as glib as it is, seems entirely appropriate here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The analysis of the Lenski experiment requires superimposing a competition model (I used a variation of the Haldane model) on the microevolutionary adaptation model.

Where did you do this? All I've seen is your probability calculations.

 

[Yttrium]

1. Microevolution is a stochastic process governed by the theorems and axioms of probability theory.
2. There are two random trials in the microevolutionary process. The replication is a random trial where the two possible outcomes are that a mutation occurs at the particular site in the genome or the mutation does not occur at the particular site in the genome. The other random trial is the mutation itself when it does occur. The outcomes can be a base substitution, base deletion, base insertion, double deletion, double insertion,... any kind of mutation that you can imagine.
3. An adaptation can occur when at least one of the offspring gets the adaptation mutation at that particular site.
4. That new variant and its offspring with that adaptation mutation are now candidates for the next adaptation mutation which occurs as described in steps 2 and 3, where the joint probability of the two random adaptational events occurring is computed using the multiplication rule.

Okay, no. I have no problem with overturning macroevolution. I'm skeptical about everything. But I have a fundamental problem with this argument.

The thing is that we're not looking for a specific outcome. If a mutation occurs, the probability that the mutation occurred is 1. If another mutation occurs, the probability that the mutation occurred is 1. You keep doing that until you have many mutations, and multiply the probabilities together, and you still get 1. We had to come up with some combination at the end. Doesn't matter what combination.

With evolution, we have a population of organism with an assortment of alleles. A selection pressure comes along (or just genetic drift even). The frequency of alleles changes. Barring extinction, we have microevolution. The probability is 1 that some kind of change happened. Adding up many changes over a great many generations, and you're going to end up with a large change. This is not a difficult concept.

 

[Frank Robert]

That implication is that microevolutionary adaptational events don't add up to a macroevolution event, these microevolutionary events must be linked by the multiplication rule. This is true if mutations are random events and this is a fundamental axiom of probability theory, the mathematics of random processes. Perhaps you want to argue that mutations are not random events?

What is your hypothesis? If you need help in formulating one, I am sure some of us will help.

Pita has suggested that I review some modern evolutionary biology texts to find that explanation. Since I'm acquainted with Joe Felsenstein and have had long discussions with him on this subject, why don't we use the textbook he wrote?
THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS

You need to present a review of the literature, not just what you are acquainted with.

Why don't you tell me which equations from his text can be used to model the Kishony and Lenski experiments? And then you can tell us how to extend any of these equations to explain the mathematics of macroevolution.

That is exactly what the person making the claim needs to do.

Why do you keep saying that? My papers give the mathematics that explains microevolutionary experiments and empirical examples of microevolution. Now if you want to believe that bacteria evolve into biologists in a billion years, that's your prerogative but you should not be indoctrinating naive school children with that mathematically irrational notion.

What is your hypothesis and how does does it refute the existing with science.

1. Microevolution is a stochastic process governed by the theorems and axioms of probability theory.
2. There are two random trials in the microevolutionary process. The replication is a random trial where the two possible outcomes are that a mutation occurs at the particular site in the genome or the mutation does not occur at the particular site in the genome. The other random trial is the mutation itself when it does occur. The outcomes can be a base substitution, base deletion, base insertion, double deletion, double insertion,... any kind of mutation that you can imagine.
3. An adaptation can occur when at least one of the offspring gets the adaptation mutation at that particular site.
4. That new variant and its offspring with that adaptation mutation are now candidates for the next adaptation mutation which occurs as described in steps 2 and 3, where the joint probability of the two random adaptational events occurring is computed using the multiplication rule.

You have the potential for four hypotheses. Do you plan on using the scientific method to test them? If so, what experiment(s) do you propose to test them? You will also need show how it refutes the established science in an implication section.

The experimental tests for this hypothesis are of course K & L.

Perhaps you can show the K & L support your hypotheses but that is for the literature review section.

I actually don't think you are a moron.

Thank you.

I think you have just got comfortable with not well-thought-out explanations of a physical phenomenon. You don't test out these explanations with experimentation and when I challenge you to test out these explanations, you make the excuse that you can't test out what happens in a billion years. I understand this is a shock to your way of thinking but with time, this will make sense to you.

You are entitled to your opinions, even incorrect ones.

Think of it this way, when someone says that reptiles can evolve feathers because the weather cooled and feathers make good insulation, ask yourself, how can a reptile lineage accumulate a set of mutations that would do this genetic transformation. What genes would have to be transformed, how many mutations are needed, how many replications are needed to address the issue of the multiplication rule for the accumulation of this set of random mutations?

Something similar might have a place in the discussion section.

And that's just the start of the genetic transformation problem, you have all the anatomic and physiologic differences between reptiles and birds to account for. You have a severe mathematical problem with the notion of macroevolution. That mathematical problem is the multiplication rule of probabilities.

You are the one making claims. I am only affirming established scientific evidence which you have not refuted.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not the biology teacher that tells biology students that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals but fail to correctly explain the physics and mathematics of biological evolution. And what is wrong with the Statistics in Medicine journal? At least they understand probability theory, not like the poorly trained biologists that take a couple of courses in dumbbell math and barely pass those courses, and then with a big sigh of relief say, "I hope I never see that stuff again". You mathematically incompetent biologists have religated the biology department into a fictional writing course for the English department.

Oh dear, it must be awful for you...

Well, it's self-evidently true, and you yourself admit it, that what you've been doing so far has failed dismally to get any positive recognition from the biological establishment. So, assuming you want to make progress and are not just on some kind of attention-seeking jag, why not try something different - like finding somewhere you'll be properly appreciated? Unfortunately, nothing suitable comes to mind...

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No, my problem is that you've previously used the 1e-9 rate from the bacterial experiments to compute "adaptive mutation" rates for humans. Now you are quoting a value that is 10x higher (and one I recall being a little low anyway).

You are still not quite getting the math. There are two random trials in the microevolutionary adaptation process. There is the replication random trial and then there is the mutation which also is a random trial. Usually, when people talk about the mutation rate, it is the probability or frequency at which any mutation occurs at the given site in the genome. The beneficial mutation rate will be slightly less, probably somewhere in the range of 1/3 to 1/4 of the any mutation rate. Even if you want to use a higher mutation rate, it doesn't negate the multiplication rule when computing the accumulation of adaptation mutations on a lineage and that's where the huge population requirements come into play. If you want to use 1e-8 for the human mutation rate, fine, so it only takes 100,000,000 replications in a lineage to accumulate each adaptational mutation in a single selection pressure environment. Last I checked, the real world is not a single selection pressure environment.

If you use the more appropriate rate for humans, then how many adaptive mutations do you project for humans in the agricultural era (last 10,000 years) and for the prior time going back to separation from other apes?

You have a billion replications to work with for the number of humans that existed from 10,000 years ago to the first appearance of humans. For an any mutation rate of 1e-9, that's a sufficient number of replications to get on average 1 member in that population with a mutation at every possible site in the genome. It would take about 4e9 replications to get on average every possible base substitution. Use an any mutation rate of 1e-8 then those billion replications would give on average 10 members out of that billion population with a mutation at any given site in the genome. You would have to divide that number 10 by 3 or 4 to take into account that it can't be just any mutation at the given site but the base substitution that gives an improvement in fitness.

You have the numbers to get variants with the sickle cell trait or a mutation that makes them better at digesting grain, but you simply don't have the numbers to get a lineage that can accumulate more than a tiny number of adaptive mutations.

So, what happens from 10,000 years ago until now? You have about 99 billion replications to work with but you have multiple different lineages subject to a wide variety of selection conditions. Each of these lineages is on its own particular evolutionary trajectory with its own particular set of selection conditions. You really don't even have 99 billion replications to work with.

Whatever it is that gives human intellect, it was there from the first appearance of humans, it didn't come about by some genetic mutation.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Oh dear, it must be awful for you...

It's not as bad as those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. And the biologists' solution to the drug resistance problem is the simple-minded recommendation for primary care physicians to reduce the usage of antibiotics. The people being hospitalized with pneumonia and sepsis must appreciate that advice.

 

[pitabread]

Whatever it is that gives human intellect, it was there from the first appearance of humans, it didn't come about by some genetic mutation.

Then what was it?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

It's not because of the purported consequences. It's because you haven't shown that your model is even applicable in that context. Heck, you haven't even shown that your model is applicable to the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

Frank has figured it out, I guess you are just not as fast a learner.

On top of that, when you got into it with actual population geneticists that pointed out various issues with your model and your conclusions (not to mention your general understanding of evolution), you basically stone-walled everyone. If an entire group of biologists are telling you there are gaps/issues in what you're proposing, you might want to humble yourself for ten seconds and think about that.

The math I've presented addresses a specific component of biological evolution, that of microevolutionary adaptation. If you want to introduce competition or recombination, you have to superimpose the mathematics. But students of dumbbell mathematics don't understand the concept of superposition in mathematics and how to do it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's not as bad as those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. And the biologists' solution to the drug resistance problem is the simple-minded recommendation for primary care physicians to reduce the usage of antibiotics. The people being hospitalized with pneumonia and sepsis must appreciate that advice.

I think you'll find that the recommendation is to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics, e.g. for viral infections.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Where did you do this? All I've seen is your probability calculations.

I did that math in this paper:
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment
This is how I superimposed the mathematics of competition onto the mathematics of microevolutionary adaptation to explain the mathematical behavior of the Lenski experiment.